Matt D

Granted, he'd need James Vandenberg speaking for him.

I don't know about this. I think somewhere around 98% of the denizens of PWO can put their thoughts into words on why they liked or didn't like a match, and that covers storytelling, execution, emotional intangibles. We have reference points from thousands of matches, and can relate how we felt back to them to distill evidence and find patterns. Maybe that takes a little more effort sometimes, but I think everyone here can basicaclly do it. Again, I think we had a lot of that with the Kevin Owens vs Cena match, where people did a great job explaining how the match may not have been laid out in a manner they would have found ideal on paper, but that the end result of it was very effective and the reasons why they felt so.

Kelly makes a confusing Kimberly though, despite the name.

I've talked a lot over the years with Dylan and Loss about the difference between rating and ranking wrestlers and matches. Ultimately I think matches are easier. You need one sentence basically. Or at least I do. "How well did the match present a narrative that was ..." And then the next words are up to you. They could be "emotionally resonant," or "action-packed" or "hate-filled" or "clever" or "well-executed" or "the right match for the right night." You'll probably have some weighted mix of twenty things and you can apply that to most matches. The trick is being consistent. It's harder with a wrestler, because you're judging the artist and not just a specific piece of art. Or you're not judging the artist but an entire catalog of art. Those are two different things. Bret's execution is a side effect of his desire to make everything feel real and believable. That's not necessarily making it feel like a real sport, I think. They're close but not the same. It's never letting the viewer step out if what's he's watching. The solid execution is a side effect of that. Selecting transitions and finishes to maximize the audience's suspension of self belief was key to Bret: it was important he had enough familiar touch points in a match but also that he varied them up so the viewer couldn't be one step ahead. He managed to do that without making his matches too cute and while maintaining internal consistency, since that was a part of the realism too. Cena, on the other hand, is king of the idea that wrestling is symbolic. His moves mean something not because they stress realism and are part of a carefully thought out and controlled tapestry but because they are built up over time and because he, his opponents, the announcers, and the company presents them as meaningful. In the ring he uses this to create a totally different sort of suspension of disbelief. That's why I think casual Cena viewers have such a hard time with him. Bret presents internal consistency. Cena relies upon and taps into an external one.

Man, I don't know. We should do a thread where we all watch those two matches and compare/contrast them.

Bret vs Bam Bam at King of the Ring 93? (Granted he won that, but he could have NOT won it just as easily) Maybe it wouldn't be as big of a spectacle but it'd still be a hell of a match and afterwards, Bret wouldn't go on TV the next night and cut a promo basically saying it didn't matter, at least. He would have sold what happened as the most important thing in the world. If you're going to bring it to that level, then Bret's entire development as a character was based on wins and losses mattering. Cena's about as far from that as possible. We're veering into sort of weird territory though.

I'd rather see prime Bret vs Brock or Owens than prime Cena vs 96/7 Austin or 91/93 Hennig. That's not an answer though.

I really don't have a good sense of Villano III.

I do think it's different on Austin's podcast when Heyman was sort of going into business for himself and for them to do it on this stage with Vince sitting right there.

My response to that is: "Yes, we know." I think it's pretty screwy (and I could attribute even more negative words than that, but I'm not going to as we're all friends here) to think that people on this site go around saying a match needs limbwork or to be a Tito Santana match to have a story or something. It's especially laughable after some of the discussion we just had within the last twenty four hours about the Owens vs Cena match.

I think Parv is seeing symptoms of one thing as a totally different disease. If work relents tomorrow, I'll go into more detail. I don't disagree with the Hansen stuff, though, and I'd extend it to people being forgiving of violence, stiffness, and blood in ways they wouldn't be of other things, when everything is just a tool and it's about how the tools are used and to what end they're used. At the same time, I think his general storytelling critique is pretty goofy. The elements he mentioned are tools. Some are just more prone to being used to excess than others. No element of wrestling is innately bad.

Apparently Tyson Kidd vs Samoa Joe was the dark match, so THAT'S a fancam to look out for on youtube this week.

I really don't think this is leading to Rollins vs HHH anytime soon. I think it's much more the case that Hunter is living vicariously through Rollins.

I'm unable to pull too many examples right now due to time constraints. Next time I watch a lucha apuestas or title match I'll try to note this. I think, actually, a good match to look at would be the one from last night. My problem (so much as it was a problem, because as many people have said, the problems in the match actually sort of worked as features) was how long the finishing stretch was relative the rest of the match. Someone else will have to make the my turn, your turn argument though. Maybe I'll watch a Volador, Jr./Mistico I match later and pin that down. I kind of hate those.

If it's a long finishing stretch: Do they put any effort in to creating these little momentum shifts/transitions or do they just happen?

Wrestler #1 hits a bomb. How does Wrestler #2 get to hit the next bomb. How do they make that work when Wrestler #1 should still have the advantage? If they do a good job with it, it's not an issue. If they do a great job with it, then it becomes a huge plus. The longer the finishing stretch goes, the harder it is.

The internet used to be a smaller but weirder place. In part that was due to who was drawn to it before the age of social media. I include myself in that number, mind you.

I think people are shitting on the agent who put that together more than Kallisto, himself. As for the blog post, it was good and it's interesting to look back at the Wyatt feud with that in mind, because it was exactly what Bray was trying to do.

I'm still wary of them running Cena vs Owens II. If they were going to do it, I would have rather it been on a US challenge on Raw, make it throwaway, let Cena get his win back (you know he will, no matter how selfless he was tonight and at other times. It's just the WWE mentality, especially with a babyface ace), and pull the bandaid off. You almost want people not to notice it and then get them apart and run Cena vs Owens III at some point when it really matters. Instead they're running it like they would anything else.

That was one of the worst spots I've seen in quite some time In the grand scheme of the match, it was really just to set up Torito doing the same thing only to get caught, which was what led to the Matadors getting eliminated. That was the narrative point to that. Just think about that and how misguided it all was. Kallisto almost killed himself on a stupid spot that was dangerous, took forever to set up, and basically had Cesaro signalling for him to jump, just so that the mascot of another team could repeat it as a call back spot to trigger his team's elimination, the first or second elimination in a six team match. I can see what they were going for on paper while putting together the match but it totally lacked perspective and bombed in execution.

So, let's think about this a bit. What's the role of a Dusty finish in 2015? What's the role in the network era? What's the role in this new chapter of the network era where they're running specials so soon after one another? It actually feels a little more viable than it did a year and a half ago to me since they have another show in two weeks and people didn't pay nearly as much for the PPV.

Whatever happens now, Ambrose can't just give them the belt. And they would have done that just a year or two ago. They did it with Bryan. Ok, that was better that it could have been if he just gave it up but we had a belt stealing angle just a few months ago.

Everyone's waiting for the *. Do we get it tonight or tomorrow.

The hanging double stomp in any situation other than a trios where the partners hold the guy is probably my least favorite move in wrestling.

I'm not looking forward to the Authority running interference constantly to prevent Reigns from cashing in ASAP.